Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

When you study the science of human sexuality and get a doctorate on the subject please come back to this board. Now if you would like to tell this board how you chose to become a heterosexual that would just be fine with me.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM

As if a degree in the subject would mean anything when the people who run the programs have the agenda of excusing and promoting their own behavior. Garbage in, garbage out.
For most people, the choice to be heterosexual is as subtle as the choice not to be a criminal — you make the choice without really realizing that that is what you are doing. Others may have a more obvious choice — and then try to cover for it by claiming they didn’t really have one.

The SCOTUS has ruled on Marriage, and the re-definition of it and the Family before. This was how they ruled:

Reynolds v. United States (1878) – SCOTUS determined:

“[Polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”\

Davis v. Beason (1890) – SCOTUS:

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.”

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), :

“the property of the said corporation . . . [is to be used to promote] the practice of polygamy — a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. . . . The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

Gay Marriage is just part of the on-going war on God, the Bible, Christianity and Truth and the War on the Family unit in place of the Hegelian State

Would you please list the Genetic Factors that predetermine a human being’s homosexuality and link to your sources, please.

I mean, since, there is this deep understanding of the unquestionable genetic causes of human sexuality…

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 12:41 PM

There are probably a number of genetic characteristics that make one particularly vulnerable to choosing a homosexual lifestyle. Overactive sex drive, low self control, any number of traits that make one socially awkward, etc. Heck, just having more androgynous physical traits probably puts one at risk.

Unless you’re planning to contradict libfreeordie’s argument, quote, “No one has ever argued that gay people can not marry or even procreate with people of the opposite sex”, which makes it clear that sexual orientation and activity are quite the matter of choice. – northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Human sexuality is an extremely complex subject. To say that homosexuals choose to be gay is an ignorant statement. Certainly there are bi-sexual people who can choose. I don’t deny that fact. A homosexual can certainly go out deceive a member of the opposite sex into believing that he/she loves them, married them and than procreate. Something that I personally find to be a horrible sin.

There are probably a number of genetic characteristics that make one particularly vulnerable to choosing a homosexual lifestyle. Overactive sex drive, low self control, any number of traits that make one socially awkward, etc. Heck, just having more androgynous physical traits probably puts one at risk. – Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

So we have a living Bible that at one time accepted human slavery but because of changes in our perception of what is right and wrong we now criminalize it. Perhaps with today’s scientific understanding of human sexuality, we have come to a time for another major shift.

I myself am gay, and the fact that only opposite-sex couples are recognized by the government and the church as married has never bothered me; I have my own values I bring to the table for society, and frankly, it makes far more sense for me that opposite-sex couples would (and should) be married.

Human sexuality is an extremely complex subject. To say that homosexuals choose to be gay is an ignorant statement. Certainly there are bi-sexual people who can choose. I don’t deny that fact. A homosexual can certainly go out deceive a member of the opposite sex into believing that he/she loves them, married them and than procreate. Something that I personally find to be a horrible sin.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

To say that homosexuals don’t choose to be gay is an ignorant statement.
What is this “believing that he/she loves them” crap? Love is something separate from sexual desire. Many people are more sexually attracted to a movie star than to their spouse — and they live happy lives non-the-less. Is getting married to the girl next door “a horrible sin” if you are more sexually aroused by Nattily Portman?

So the Bible conveniently just says that human slavery is undesirable. However, today we find slavery a horrid sin. How did Christians evolve in our interpretation of the Bible to that point? It seems like we are going down a slippery slope here.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Not really.

The Bible is a lot like the Constitution; it espouses the fundamental principles and doesn’t concern itself too extraordinarily with the details.

Hence the argument. Has the changing of the interpretation of the Constitution to accomodate the changing of society rendered the underlying document and its espoused principles worthless? It has made portions of it archaic, but does that eliminate its value completely?

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Except with one fundamental difference – the Founding Fathers recognized their limited capacities and insight into the future world and thus left behind an amendment process. That’s in contrast to the Holy Bible, which some believe to be the true Word of God, literal in its entire meaning, with many parts and passages in direct conflict to what we now know to be morally correct and true. There’s no amending process to the Bible to rid ourselves of – let’s say – the passages endorsing slavery.

Human sexuality is an extremely complex subject. To say that homosexuals choose to be gay is an ignorant statement. Certainly there are bi-sexual people who can choose. I don’t deny that fact. A homosexual can certainly go out deceive a member of the opposite sex into believing that he/she loves them, married them and than procreate. Something that I personally find to be a horrible sin.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Why?

If they’re happy, faithful, and genuinely love each other, what does it matter?

Why does acknowledging that you choose to have gay sex bother you so horribly?

I myself am gay, and the fact that only opposite-sex couples are recognized by the government and the church as married has never bothered me; I have my own values I bring to the table for society, and frankly, it makes far more sense for me that opposite-sex couples would (and should) be married.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Why?

If they’re happy, faithful, and genuinely love each other, what does it matter?

Why does acknowledging that you choose to have gay sex bother you so horribly?

Do you not want to take the responsibility for your decision?

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I’m actually having trouble choosing the right words, here. Everything I can think of seems like it could be interpreted as some kind of snide comment.
So, in earnest: Good for you.

Except with one fundamental difference – the Founding Fathers recognized their limited capacities and insight into the future world and thus left behind an amendment process. That’s in contrast to the Holy Bible, which some believe to be the true Word of God, literal in its entire meaning, with many parts and passages in direct conflict to what we now know to be morally correct and true. There’s no amending process to the Bible to rid ourselves of – let’s say – the passages endorsing slavery.

If they’re happy, faithful, and genuinely love each other, what does it matter?

Why does acknowledging that you choose to have gay sex bother you so horribly?

Do you not want to take the responsibility for your decision?

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I have a first cousin who married a gay man. It nearly destroyed her. And, for the record I chose to abstain from having gay sex or straight sex. Does that satisfy your damn curiosity? I have led a lonely life for 61 years without a life partner. I remained silent on the issue until 2007, when I could take it no longer and put a gun to my head and played Russian Roulette for several days. Of course I was diagnosed with major depression and committed to the hospital. I guess that I am just a self-hating gay male. I was brought up to be straight, “normal man” ………………. but for some unknown reason I am gay.

Of course I was diagnosed with major depression and committed to the hospital. I guess that I am just a self-hating gay male alcoholic. I was brought up to abstain from alcohol, be straight, “normal man” ………………. but for some unknown reason I cant stop drinking. am gay.

Yes, many people discover things about themselves that seem insurmountable and unchangeable. And why does homosexuality get special treatment?

I have no idea how a split decision would work. “Federalism” doesn’t prevent the U.S. Government from defining who receives federal benefits. So DOMA should rise or fall depending on the reading the court gives of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which should also govern the Prop 8 decision. The proper result would uphold the right of each state to define marriage within its borders, uphold DOMA, and (while this probably isn’t before the court), uphold the right of states not to recognize under the full faith and credit clause marriages from other states that would not be legal in those states.

I myself am gay, and the fact that only opposite-sex couples are recognized by the government and the church as married has never bothered me; I have my own values I bring to the table for society, and frankly, it makes far more sense for me that opposite-sex couples would (and should) be married. – northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Why?

If they’re happy, faithful, and genuinely love each other, what does it matter?

Why does acknowledging that you choose to have gay sex bother you so horribly?

Do you not want to take the responsibility for your decision? – northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I’m actually having trouble choosing the right words, here. Everything I can think of seems like it could be interpreted as some kind of snide comment.
So, in earnest: Good for you. – Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

May I ask do your wife, children and friends all know that you are homosexual? Or, do you live let them in on your little secret?

May I ask do your wife, children and friends all know that you are homosexual? Or, do you live let them in on your little secret? – SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Let me rephrase the above:
May I ask do your wife, children and friends all know that you are homosexual? Or. do you let them live in ignorance of your sexuality? If so, I feel that you are hiding and are living giving into peer pressure.

northdallasthirty, I failed to tell you that I have known of a number of people in my 61 years, who have thought that marriage and family would cure them of their homosexuality. Or, at least make them social acceptable. Is that what you have chosen?

Along with my first cousin who married a gay man. I have a distant cousin who was a Methodist minister whose wife turned out to be a lesbian. That marriage nearly destroyed him. The divorce was so nasty he had to be committed for major depression for over one month.

Yes, many people discover things about themselves that seem insurmountable and unchangeable. And why does homosexuality get special treatment? – Nutstuyu on December 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Why historically does homosexuality get the horrible “special treatment” that it has in just my short lifetime? Let me see. When I first realized that I was gay homosexuality was considered to be mental illness to be treated by professionals. Homosexual acts were criminalized in all 50 states. One could not hold a federal job and be an open homosexual…………….. should I go on with this? I think I have made my point.

BTW, Nutsuyu is a better name than northdallasthirty, which you were using.

I didnt get married or have a family-but dated men/relationships and tried to be “normal”. All so I wouldn’t be disowned from family, friends, and not be banished to hell. Ya know. tried to convince myself.

Didn’t work..once I accepted myself and what would follow-I was happy and still am. I am me-like it or not. :)
The lie hurt others, not only myself.
What you explained does happen. Marriage, relationships, children-to cure “it” they think and so they live the lie. When it crashes..all are betrayed and a hell of a lot of destruction.
I know two people..one woman that I worked with..marriage and two children..divorced now and came out. It really messed up the children.

I don’t worry about what other people think or believe about it anymore. My business and life. I try and be true and honest.

Other then my domestic partnership coverage I have, I have nothing to do with anything around this subject. I don’t want Govt in my life and nor do I think Govt should be involved dictating to churches or others on what they should do or be involved with.
I detest gay activists as much as extreme so/cons that spew ignorance.

I am more of a conservative libertarian..so I am more let live but no to Govt dictating morals either way. I even understand why gay marriage would lead to issues and unintended consequences..I don’t approve of. Some posters temp me to want to loose it..( Ex.count to 10)but many so/cons here have been very good to me and respectful in discourse. Even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything. Those-with logical, respectful,rational arguments changed my mind about this a while ago. Even though I personally have no use for marriage myself.

Christian friends I made here like 4 Grace and Granny Dee. So/Con Christians I can talk to all day about anything. They are a great testament to their faith.

I am more for civil unions. My 2 cents..and MO.

I have been at HA a few years now. I have always enjoyed your posts and attitude to discuss soc issues rationally. Thank you for continuing a dialogue I no longer have any patience or care for.
I see your respect and honesty..thanks for not helping paint us as sick loons like..ummm..lfor and others. ^5.

Because it has historically caused, or at least been associated with, social decay. It is one of the decadences that denote a society on the verge of collapse. – Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

And, specifically what society in history has collapsed because of the acceptance that a small minority is homosexual? I seem to remember the Soviets always ranting that our society is a decadent society and in social decay. Now we get the same rants from Islamists.

And, specifically what society in history has collapsed because of the acceptance that a small minority is homosexual? I seem to remember the Soviets always ranting that our society is a decadent society and in social decay. Now we get the same rants from Islamists.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The problem is that the “small minority” is typically concentrated among the ruling elite. Clearly it was a problem in Rome as it went from Republic to Empire, but chances are it was also a problem in Babylon and Judea. It is part of how governance is corrupted by hedonistic subcultures.

I didnt get married or have a family-but dated men/relationships and tried to be “normal”. All so I wouldn’t be disowned from family, friends, and not be banished to hell. Ya know. tried to convince myself.

Didn’t work..once I accepted myself and what would follow-I was happy and still am. I am me-like it or not. :)
The lie hurt others, not only myself.
What you explained does happen. Marriage, relationships, children-to cure “it” they think and so they live the lie. When it crashes..all are betrayed and a hell of a lot of destruction.
I know two people..one woman that I worked with..marriage and two children..divorced now and came out. It really messed up the children.

I don’t worry about what other people think or believe about it anymore. My business and life. I try and be true and honest.

Other then my domestic partnership coverage I have, I have nothing to do with anything around this subject. I don’t want Govt in my life and nor do I think Govt should be involved dictating to churches or others on what they should do or be involved with.
I detest gay activists as much as extreme so/cons that spew ignorance.

I am more of a conservative libertarian..so I am more let live but no to Govt dictating morals either way. I even understand why gay marriage would lead to issues and unintended consequences..I don’t approve of. Some posters temp me to want to loose it..( Ex.count to 10)but many so/cons here have been very good to me and respectful in discourse. Even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything. Those-with logical, respectful,rational arguments changed my mind about this a while ago. Even though I personally have no use for marriage myself.

Christian friends I made here like 4 Grace and Granny Dee. So/Con Christians I can talk to all day about anything. They are a great testament to their faith.

I am more for civil unions. My 2 cents..and MO.

I have been at HA a few years now. I have always enjoyed your posts and attitude to discuss soc issues rationally. Thank you for continuing a dialogue I no longer have any patience or care for.
I see your respect and honesty..thanks for not helping paint us as sick loons like..ummm..lfor and others. ^5. – bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I don’t worry about what other people think or believe about it anymore. My business and life. I try and be true and honest.

After my mental breakdown and coming out to a couple of friends and family that is where I have come to be. I no longer care what others think. But I do worry about children who have to go through what the both of us have had to go through. I don’t know if gay marriage is the answer or not. I don’t pretend to know all the answers. Certainly if gay marriage is imposed upon all fifty states by the Supreme Court, it is going to stir up a hornets nest.

Because it has historically caused, or at least been associated with, social decay. It is one of the decadences that denote a society on the verge of collapse.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

2% of the pop is destroying the US and civilization! e-gads. How can that be?
LOL…I see a lot of moral decay and destruction from 1000′s of children being raised in the welfare system (I am taxed for),abortions(taxed for) a broken public school system(I am taxed for), babies and children neglected- raised on the streets and killing each other with out a care, born addicted to drugs,abused-physically, sexually,emotionally. Women and men bed hopping like rabbits- children by multiple father’s..they don’t even know who daddy is. heart breaking.
Murder, rape, violence, on and on.. and a prison system jam packed full of hetero’s. Islam waging war and evil across the globe..
just a few things that come to mind when I think of social decay..

Those aren’t my children or Charlies-or our mess. Those “choices” impact my life- but I don’t rage against hetero’s. It is humanity imo-good and bad in everyone-no matter color,ethnicity,class,money, sexual O or religion. Throughout history. I worked in the juvenile correctional system and with abused children. It will haunt me forever-the things I saw. But I do not paint all hetero’s as sick monsters because I saw some that were. If our society isnt exactly what you find morally acceptable..look at the big picture-not scape goat on 2% of people who chose a different sexual relationship you find deviant. Some truth would be nice…

Just amazed how there is so much so wrong..evil everyday I witness
but some people are obsessed with 2% of the pop. I stay to myself-I don’t participate in any gay activism or organizations-or the community. I own my own business, work hard and try and live an honest decent life.
if you don’t find me acceptable- no skin off my back. But i would suggest looking at your own house..cause its on fire.

bazil9, I hope you that you find someone and build a life together. I only wish that I had come out around the age at least 30. I just feel that time has passed me by. I am certainly no hedonist. I do believe that people are not supposed to live lonely, loveless lives

The problem is your equating not acting on particular sexual desires as “living a lie”. Everyone has impulses they don’t act on, and most people don’t call that “lying”.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

It was a lie.
I was not in love with him (lie)-nor happy
or myself. I was lying and pretending (it showed)
and was questioned. I am not going to get into sex discussions-
and my personal history-just so you can argue with me. I acted on what I felt was right before and knew it but stopped and forced myself to play straight.
I hoped it would change by forcing myself..
it didnt.
Your never going to understand.
And that is fine. I don’t understand why you care.
But whatever Makes you happy. :)
What people do as consensual adults (hetero or not) is their business-not mine. My hetero friends have many deviant tales to tell me..and I am deviant..lol. My fave is when married couples have asked at me joining a 3 some..assuming because I am gay-I would just love to! LOL…no thank you.

My hetero friends have many deviant tales to tell me..and I am deviant..lol. My fave is when married couples have asked at me joining a 3 some..assuming because I am gay-I would just love to! LOL…no thank you.

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You realize that probably says more about the company you keep then any group in general. Lesson: get better friends…

Why in the hell or you so damn concerned about a gay gene. Would it matter to you if a gay GENE was found? Would you want all homosexuals to undergo some gay gene conversion therapy to being “normal” humans? Or, would you want all people to tested to find out if they have the gene and be prohibited from reproducing. Even worse all fetuses tested and if found to be gay aborted?

What people do as consensual adults (hetero or not) is their business-not mine. My hetero friends have many deviant tales to tell me..and I am deviant..lol. My fave is when married couples have asked at me joining a 3 some..assuming because I am gay-I would just love to! LOL…no thank you. – bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I agree Charlie..I have much in common with you
and know where you are coming from. I don’t feel comfortable sharing too much here..but went through much of what you did. I can safely say..I know how you felt..and how other’s do.

bazil9, I hope you that you find someone and build a life together. I only wish that I had come out around the age at least 30. I just feel that time has passed me by. I am certainly no hedonist. I do believe that people are not supposed to live lonely, loveless lives

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I agree Charlie..in the bold.

I went through all that in my early 20′s. Near 40 now.
Thank you- I have a wonderful girl I have had a monogamous relationship for over 10 years with.
I wish you all the happiness in the world. And if you haven’t met the “one” yet-I hope you do.
I have a loving family and good friends who like me for me-we don’t even discuss my difference. I often forget. :)

I am also thankful that many here leave that alone and I can fight with them on views we share. For many..I am just B9-a person.

I just have my feelings about Govt-I like it as far away from me as possible. (and this gay marriage fight)
I believe people should be free in their lives and not have something imposed/forced upon them..or their church-business ect.
I stand for freedom..I fear Govt dictating to churches and business
that they must approve of this-against their beliefs-law suits and on and on. I don’t think marriage is the answer myself..but that is just me. Law won’t change hearts or minds either. And honestly Charlie..why not civil unions? Most gays I have met, are not religious. I honestly believe they are picking this fight to screw with Christianity and the Churches. Not because they want God to bless the union. I am against that..why I also detest activists who have painted a horrible image we all get painted with. Just anecdotal evidence on my part.

I personally do not want Govt forcing me to accept things (like Sharia or Islam)..against my beliefs-and threatening me if I do not. How I see it.
Anyway-maybe not my best explanation right now. Slow to type with a med condition I have- and am packing to move. Just took a break but saw your sincere replies and wanted to answer you. Over the years-I know your a good man..from your posts. Enjoyed it.
Bless you buddy.

What people do as consensual adults (hetero or not) is their business-not mine. My hetero friends have many deviant tales to tell me..and I am deviant..lol. My fave is when married couples have asked at me joining a 3 some..assuming because I am gay-I would just love to! LOL…no thank you. – bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

That is precisely what I say to the pro-gay dimwits who get all giddy talking about finding a ‘gay gene’.

What they think (and I use that word loosely) is that finding it would mean everyone would have to give them official equality plus an unarguable excuse for their behavior. Teh ghey is genetic, dontchaknow, I can’t HELP it!

What they don’t even begin to think about are the full ramifications, like the ones you listed.

By that standard America’s uniqueness, it’s doctrinal commitment to Freedom, derives solely from The Bible.

Yeah, OK.

Capitalist Hog on December 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The entire concept of our Constitution revolves around “inalienable rights”; the long and short of which is that rights are not bestowed by some inbred fop with a crown or by someone with a wig and a robe and a gavel. It was literally a rev0lutionary idea at the time – the world hadn’t anything remotely like it since the Magna Carta.

So yeah.

And one more thing – those rights are GRANTED by God…but we have to ENFORCE them. The last time that was to half of the nation that thought skin color was a valid reason to deny said rights. Next time it may be to half of the nation who thinks rights (and scientific facts) really do come from judges.

I went through all that in my early 20′s. Near 40 now.
Thank you- I have a wonderful girl I have had a monogamous relationship for over 10 years with.
I wish you all the happiness in the world. And if you haven’t met the “one” yet-I hope you do.
I have a loving family and good friends who like me for me-we don’t even discuss my difference. I often forget. :) – bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM

i am glad to hear that you have found someone. May you both live a long and happy life together.

Why is the federal government in the marriage-definition business again?

Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Because many federal benefits are contingent upon marital status.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Which is why the STATE in which the person lives will determine the marital status and what benefits apply. People seem to forget that we live in 50 (or 57) sovereign states who collaborate (federalize) certain common responsibilities like defense and borders.

It’s based on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been

Are you sure it’s between a man and a woman?

Are you sure it’s not between a man and women, plural?

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

That’s NT, dude.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Priceless. I wish I hadn’t gone to bed before reading it. It would have been great to have a good laugh before going to sleep.

Just for the record, triple, I am not calling you stupid. But you clearly had no clue what this parable taught if you thought that these ten virgins were all getting married to the bridegroom.

This was about a wedding party. These virgins were not unlike modern bridesmaids. Their purpose was to celebrate and honor their friend’s marriage. The whole point of the parable was the need to be ready so you’re not left out of an event.

Now take the worst example of a polygamist you can find in the Bible. That would be Solomon, and he turned away from his faith because of his many wives. Many of those wives were acquired for political purposes. The marriage in such cases was intended to cement their diplomatic relations.

But take this example of a polygamist. Do you really think he married all his wives at one time? No, of course not. He married each one separately. So he was not engaged in a single marriage to multiple women, but in multiple marriages.

Even in the case of the worst polygamist you can come up with, each marriage was between one man and one woman.

Polygamy does not redefine marriage. It simply makes marriage no longer exclusive. In a polygamous society, you can get married again without ending your first marriage.

Even polygamy fails your attempt to claim that marriage meant something different in the past.

Our Constitution is a product of the New Testament. – listens2glenn on December 8, 2012 at 4:26 PM

That sure is news to this historian. I guess we can forget the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason and the concept of the Rights of Man. Our government is formed by the people to protect the rights of each and everyone of us from the tyranny of the majority over the individual. It is no set of religious laws.

It appears that a lot of heterosexual men have a threesome as one of their ultimate sexual fantasies.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You bet I do. But I CHOOSE not to act on it because of social and moral norms. Now if we lived in Ancient Greece I probably wouldn’t have to worry about it and could even have a few boys and goats on the side. Ironically, not even the extremely sexually prolific Greeks had ghey marriage.

That paradigm that has been around for thousands and thousands of years.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

So has polytheism, which has a far more extensive pedigree than monotheism. Care to join a prayer circle for Enlil, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Marduk, El Elyon, Ninlil or Saturn? Happy Saturnalia to you, btw.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Isn’t it interesting that even polytheists still had essentially the same view of marriage that the Jews and early Christians did, and that we have had to this day?

Seems like there’s a much bigger consensus on marriage than there is on religion.

As an argument goes, though, arguments about the history of religion really say nothing about the history of marriage.

Northdallasthirty and I are not the same person. But seeing as how you confuse people’s sexual activities with genetic ethnicity, I can see how you’d confuse posters’ names. – Nutstuyu on December 8, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Well, I glad to hear that. I thought to poor fellow might be suffering from dual personality disorder. I asked him some personal questions, that he did not answer, and all of a sudden you appeared, which I thought was a bit freakish.

Why in the hell or you so damn concerned about a gay gene. Would it matter to you if a gay GENE was found? Would you want all homosexuals to undergo some gay gene conversion therapy to being “normal” humans? Or, would you want all people to tested to find out if they have the gene and be prohibited from reproducing. Even worse all fetuses tested and if found to be gay aborted?

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Because until there is a gene for it, it remains a changeable and controllable behavior trait.

In no small part because our ancestors fled from organized religion…something you’ll rarely if ever hear liberal history revisionists say. Especially the ones who’ve never lived under a state-enforced religious system, which is 99% of them.

All of the above, without the guiding light of the Bible, is naught more than a few flickering candles in the darkness.

Take a look at the French Revolution, ‘historian’, and tell us how brilliant that was. – MelonCollie on December 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM

The same guiding light of the Bible that has had so numerous atrocities commented in its name they could fill a library. By the way, I did get a degree in history way back in 1973 and find it utterly fascinating.

My feelings on the French Revolution is that it wasn’t such a good time to be King Louis XVI or any member of the royal family ……………… or to fall out of favor during the Reign of Terror. I only wish that Napoleon had won at Waterloo and united Europe under the his Napoleonic Code.

In no small part because our ancestors fled from organized religion…something you’ll rarely if ever hear liberal history revisionists say. Especially the ones who’ve never lived under a state-enforced religious system, which is 99% of them.

MelonCollie on December 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM

It’s not so much organized religion, but specific religions that were controlled by heads of states, I.e. monarchs. One could not participate in English politics if Catholic or Methodist or Lutheran.

Because until there is a gene for it, it remains a changeable and controllable behavior trait. – Nutstuyu on December 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You are nuts, aren’t you………that is why you call yourself Nuts tuyu. Go and experiment on some straight people and see if you can change them into being homosexual.

That is precisely what I say to the pro-gay dimwits who get all giddy talking about finding a ‘gay gene’.

What they think (and I use that word loosely) is that finding it would mean everyone would have to give them official equality plus an unarguable excuse for their behavior. Teh ghey is genetic, dontchaknow, I can’t HELP it!

What they don’t even begin to think about are the full ramifications, like the ones you listed. -MelonCollie on December 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Every sexual habit is learnable — though, like all habits, unlearning them is difficult and often fragile. It isn’t “what you are”, it is “what you have done”, and how that changes over time is largely up to you.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I love how liberals firmly believe that gender differences are purely a result of your upbringing, and can be fixed with a sex change operation, while simultaneously believing that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, and you literally have no choice in the matter.

Being male is inborn. Being female is inborn. Being homosexual is not.

I love people that assume.. sigh..
let me re-phrase..
co-workers,clients,people I grew up with ect..
I still consider friends.

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Who assumed anything? YOU said your “hetero” friends tell you deviant things they do. YOU said you have known married couples who have asked for a threesome with you. I was just reiterating that that didn’t say anything about married couple and heteros; just the company you keep.

21 years of marriage and neither my husband or I have asked a gay or straight person in our bed. I would venture to guess that most long term married couples share out experience and not the experience that you talk about,but maybe in this day and age- I am being naive.

I love how liberals firmly believe that gender differences are purely a result of your upbringing, and can be fixed with a sex change operation, while simultaneously believing that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, and you literally have no choice in the matter.

Being male is inborn. Being female is inborn. Being homosexual is not.

These threads never fail to expose the pro-same-sex marriage people for exactly what they are. Same sex marriage isn’t about equality or fairness, it’s about making abnormal people feel good about themselves. If they wanted equal treatment under the law, then they would accept civil unions. They don’t want to accept that because they want to force approval of their lifestyles onto society.

What sad is that there are so many people who advocate for the gay activists who close their eyes to their real agenda, which even THEY have admitted. They have advocated for completely abolishing age of consent laws, so they can molest younger and younger boys. They admitted that the DADT repeal was all about forcing all of society to sanction their relationships.

How long will it be before military chaplains will be sued for “discrimination” and they will be forced to either leave their jobs or “marry” same sex couples. They are already suing businesses who (literally) won’t CATER to them. This is only the beginning, folks.

You people are obtuse. First, off animals don’t have legality so way to miss the whole point. A child naturally pairbonds and binds a couple LEGALLY. Government realized that it was in the best interest to cement these kinds of unions.

And as far as the animal kingdom-some cannibalize their young and eat their own poop.. So I guess that should be okay with humans then.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

amen. this is what its all about: children. The reason the government SHOULD be in the marriage business is because we have an interest in protecting each generation. In Britain there was a case fighting over a child by a gay couple and lesbian couple. 4! parents claimed rightful custody. What a frickin joke, and is the natural progression of this ridiculous notion of redefining marriage.

LOL, don’t worry. I doubt I’ll take it the wrong way. Most people are a little nonplussed to see a gay person who actually believes in equality of responsibility and standards.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Because we really don’t see many of them. Either gay people hide or they are very loudly out and in our faces with us being the ones who have to confirm.

Live and let live is hard to get to when you have someone shouting in your face.

While I understand that there’s a degree of militancy necessary to get the wheels moving of any societal change, better or worse, there comes a time where that militancy needs to change to graciousness and I’m afraid the gay movement hasn’t got to that point yet and hackles are starting to become entrenched.

Gays may win the battle, but the real war is coexisting peacefully and I don’t see that happening because of that lack of graciousness. MHO, of course.

Gays may win the battle, but the real war is coexisting peacefully and I don’t see that happening because of that lack of graciousness. MHO, of course.

kim roy on December 8, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The more likely reality is that the gays may win the battle today, but like happened in Rome they were one of the very last assaults against a prosperous society that had already began declining into decay. What happens to gays when there is no longer a prospering society is that they lose the polite society and political correctness that has been protecting them being out of the closet. When there is no longer prosperity to allow people the luxury of ignoring those things they would otherwise be forced to tolerate and no rule of law to be used as force to make them tolerate then the diversity will end in exactly what it always must. Conflict! As 2% of the population, enjoy.

When there is no longer prosperity to allow people the luxury of ignoring those things they would otherwise be forced to tolerate and no rule of law to be used as force to make them tolerate then the diversity will end in exactly what it always must. Conflict! As 2% of the population, enjoy.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM

NAILED IT.

Watch for reality to ensue when black Democrats and gays are no longer protected by their legions of weasel lawyers and activist judges. Watch for people like Dante and libfree to get beaten when they advocate their foolish cowardice to the wrong person IRL.

There are going to be a lot of painful adjustments. My generation is not going to handle running into the wall of universal truths…

I forgot one thing. Gays will not be tolerated as part of any tribal outcome of the fall of America. They offer the tribe no future benefit. Tribes want to expand their power, and that requires making babies!

I forgot one thing. Gays will not be tolerated as part of any tribal outcome of the fall of America. They offer the tribe no future benefit. Tribes want to expand their power, and that requires making babies!

I will no longer post on this board. It is absolutely pointless. Good-bye HotAir.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM

It is just simply impossible to make a conservative argument in favor of gay marriage. There just is not one. The only one you could come up with is one that will always be rejected by both sides. The federal Government just simply should not be involved at all.

I actually started to respect you though. So, I hope you do well where ever you end up.

I will no longer post on this board. It is absolutely pointless. Good-bye HotAir.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Do what I do in these teh ghey threads…state your case, defend your position, and try and answer a question/point or two. Only get in more lengthy convos with those who are at least intellectually honest, and ignore the trash. It’s not easy, and I still fall into a flame war or two now and then, but avoiding them will keep you sane…and you can only shake and thump a dull flashlight for so long until there’s no light left.

If activist judges, as in the case of California, can negate the will of the American People concerning allowing “Adam and Steve” to “marry”, why can’t they call preaching against homosexuality a hate crime?